Can an atheist believe in the human soul?
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:03 pm
After the discussion over Pullman and his trilogy was brought up, it got me wondering. Can an atheist believe in a spiritual component to our existence? Nothing supernatural or anything, but a continuation of consciousness after corporeal death, or an ascension to another realm of existence. The terms supernatural and magic now seem to be being replaced with the term quantum theory, covering all things that currently defy explanation based on our present understanding of science. This isn't intended to be a thread for rabid religion bashers or darwin was the devil advocates, just a discussion about whether there can be a spiritual realm as part of the natural order of the universe, sans deity.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvsHnbzW6vU[/youtube]
ridenrain @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:31 pm
I can't talk for others but I don't.
To believe that there is something greater or lasts after the body dies is to believe that there is more to humanity than flesh, bone and the electrical impulses that make us self aware. Someone who believes in a soul believes in a spirit and I do not believe you can be a spititual atheist.
WBenson @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:57 pm
By the definition of the word atheist? yes. Atheism refers only to the lack of belief in a supreme being. Anything else is game in atheism. Do I think it happens much in practice? No.
ridenrain @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:24 pm
Is it a supreme being or just a superior being?
I've gotten into discussions where some think that atheists believe in nothing higher evolved or superior to mankind. That's a dumb blanket statement and there derinately may be superior beings, but to grant and accept them as god is switching from reason to theology.
romanP @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:28 pm
Quantum theory has a lot more to do with understanding current physical unknowns than casting into stone that these things are unknown. Only the results of quantum research can seem like some sort of supernatural phenomenon, because they can be very hard to understand, since the common knowledge and theories of atoms, light, and probability start to become a little warped.
I used to call myself an atheist because I was angry with my upbringing and the lack of any rational conversation about the subject of Christianity. Since learning about quantum mechanics, I've decided that's mostly just as silly as believing that some guy who got nailed to a tree somehow rose from the dead.
I now call myself a pantheist, because it seems that one of the laws of physics in this universe is that even things that are false can still be true, so it makes more sense to discard belief than to discard ideas. Sometimes I play off Hindu beliefs, sometimes I'm a Buddhist, and sometimes I'm a Discordian.
But to answer the question about the soul, I think that only questions about the mind and consciousness can truly answer this question. We still do not know how a collection of cells can become conscious or form a mind. The quantum interactions between your nervous system and the rest of the universe are very big question. Electrons seem to have this inate ability to be in many places at the same time, and it is electricity that makes our brains function. At the same time that one might be thinking of making a sandwich, part of that brain might also be co-existing with a peice of meteorite ore floating through space, as could any other part of your body or any other peice of matter that exists. But we have this collection of things in our brains that we call memories and thoughts, and we don't know exactly how they're formed, which could suggest that there is a lot more to electrons than merely carrying a charge.
ridenrain @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Oh dear.. so now it's schrödinger's god?
Ripcat @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:33 pm
http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... pic&t=8245
romanP @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:37 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Oh dear.. so now it's schrödinger's god?
More like schrodinger's everything.
As one of my favourite pieces of philosophy from the movie I <3 Huckabees states, everything is the same, even when it's different.
Zipperfish @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:27 pm
Science is, by definition, concerend with nature. Anything supernatural is simply beyond the realm of science. Using science to prove or disprove God is like using a voltmeter to check your tire pressure. Also, faith, by definition, lies beyond the realm of rationality. Faith cannot be argued; it transcends rationality. So faith too is beyond the realm of science.
Thanos @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:19 pm
Most atheists usually have the guts to admit that saying "I don't know" doesn't make them weak or undermine their philosophical arguments. In terms of spirituality my own atheistic/agnostic opinion is that I'll never know whether or not the soul exists. I do not find the possibility that I do not have a soul, and that all I am ends forever when I die, particularly disturbing. If this is the way it is, then I look at it as something that is too large to ever "fix" so I don't see the need to waste valuable time and energy worrying about it. I'd say right now that enough anecdotal evidence exists (Celebrity Paranormal Project notwithstanding, of course 
) which leads to at least a presumption that the soul does exits. I believe that the science of the future will eventually be able to either credibly prove or disprove this supposition. Not in my lifetime, or course, but hopefully someday.
I'm not a die-hard like Dawkins or Hitchens. My atheism isn't rooted in an almost pathological need to wholesale refute the existence of the soul. Rather, it's completely based on the disgust I feel towards religion as a whole. Religion has and has never had anything at all to do with genuine spirituality, but it has everything to do with political tyranny and the generation of sheer emotional terror within it's adherents solely as a mechanism for mass mind control. To me it's all sort of an apples-and-oranges argument with a whole bunch of stuff mixed up that cannot ever mesh or mix well together.
camerontech @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:27 pm
a soul is your spirit, your character, your morals. I don't think it's something physical. it's who you are, you can't sell it and you can't deny it.
Zipperfish @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:07 pm
Thanos Thanos:
Most atheists usually have the guts to admit that saying "I don't know" doesn't make them weak or undermine their philosophical arguments. In terms of spirituality my own atheistic/agnostic opinion is that I'll never know whether or not the soul exists. I do not find the possibility that I do not have a soul, and that all I am ends forever when I die, particularly disturbing. If this is the way it is, then I look at it as something that is too large to ever "fix" so I don't see the need to waste valuable time and energy worrying about it. I'd say right now that enough anecdotal evidence exists (Celebrity Paranormal Project notwithstanding, of course ) which leads to at least a presumption that the soul does exits. I believe that the science of the future will eventually be able to either credibly prove or disprove this supposition. Not in my lifetime, or course, but hopefully someday.
I'm not a die-hard like Dawkins or Hitchens. My atheism isn't rooted in an almost pathological need to wholesale refute the existence of the soul. Rather, it's completely based on the disgust I feel towards religion as a whole. Religion has and has never had anything at all to do with genuine spirituality, but it has everything to do with political tyranny and the generation of sheer emotional terror within it's adherents solely as a mechanism for mass mind control. To me it's all sort of an apples-and-oranges argument with a whole bunch of stuff mixed up that cannot ever mesh or mix well together.
) which leads to at least a presumption that the soul does exits. I believe that the science of the future will eventually be able to either credibly prove or disprove this supposition. Not in my lifetime, or course, but hopefully someday.I'm not a die-hard like Dawkins or Hitchens. My atheism isn't rooted in an almost pathological need to wholesale refute the existence of the soul. Rather, it's completely based on the disgust I feel towards religion as a whole. Religion has and has never had anything at all to do with genuine spirituality, but it has everything to do with political tyranny and the generation of sheer emotional terror within it's adherents solely as a mechanism for mass mind control. To me it's all sort of an apples-and-oranges argument with a whole bunch of stuff mixed up that cannot ever mesh or mix well together.
I agree--there's something of a religious zeal in Dawkins and Hitchens protestations. To paraphrase Billy Shakespeare: methinks they do protest too much. Hitchens is nothing but a professional provacateur anyways, so I don't usualyl attach much merit to what he says. But Dawkins is a career scietnists--he should know that the realm of the supernatural lies outside the bounds of science. Trying to prove God through logic completely obviates the need for "faith." Trying to disprove God using science is a fool's errand--you can't.
I'm a scientist, but I have no problem reconciling science and faith. My desire to do "good" may originate from God or from genetically programmed memes and genes passed on as per Darwin. It doesn't change the fact that I have an innate sense oif what is good and a desire to strive for something more than what I am.
sandorski @ Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:28 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Thanos Thanos:
Most atheists usually have the guts to admit that saying "I don't know" doesn't make them weak or undermine their philosophical arguments. In terms of spirituality my own atheistic/agnostic opinion is that I'll never know whether or not the soul exists. I do not find the possibility that I do not have a soul, and that all I am ends forever when I die, particularly disturbing. If this is the way it is, then I look at it as something that is too large to ever "fix" so I don't see the need to waste valuable time and energy worrying about it. I'd say right now that enough anecdotal evidence exists (Celebrity Paranormal Project notwithstanding, of course ) which leads to at least a presumption that the soul does exits. I believe that the science of the future will eventually be able to either credibly prove or disprove this supposition. Not in my lifetime, or course, but hopefully someday.
I'm not a die-hard like Dawkins or Hitchens. My atheism isn't rooted in an almost pathological need to wholesale refute the existence of the soul. Rather, it's completely based on the disgust I feel towards religion as a whole. Religion has and has never had anything at all to do with genuine spirituality, but it has everything to do with political tyranny and the generation of sheer emotional terror within it's adherents solely as a mechanism for mass mind control. To me it's all sort of an apples-and-oranges argument with a whole bunch of stuff mixed up that cannot ever mesh or mix well together.
) which leads to at least a presumption that the soul does exits. I believe that the science of the future will eventually be able to either credibly prove or disprove this supposition. Not in my lifetime, or course, but hopefully someday.I'm not a die-hard like Dawkins or Hitchens. My atheism isn't rooted in an almost pathological need to wholesale refute the existence of the soul. Rather, it's completely based on the disgust I feel towards religion as a whole. Religion has and has never had anything at all to do with genuine spirituality, but it has everything to do with political tyranny and the generation of sheer emotional terror within it's adherents solely as a mechanism for mass mind control. To me it's all sort of an apples-and-oranges argument with a whole bunch of stuff mixed up that cannot ever mesh or mix well together.
I agree--there's something of a religious zeal in Dawkins and Hitchens protestations. To paraphrase Billy Shakespeare: methinks they do protest too much. Hitchens is nothing but a professional provacateur anyways, so I don't usualyl attach much merit to what he says. But Dawkins is a career scietnists--he should know that the realm of the supernatural lies outside the bounds of science. Trying to prove God through logic completely obviates the need for "faith." Trying to disprove God using science is a fool's errand--you can't.
I'm a scientist, but I have no problem reconciling science and faith. My desire to do "good" may originate from God or from genetically programmed memes and genes passed on as per Darwin. It doesn't change the fact that I have an innate sense oif what is good and a desire to strive for something more than what I am.
IMO, Dawkins is just reacting to the constant barrage against Science by the likes of Creationists and others. He makes some good points, especially concerning about which is more believable.
ShepherdsDog @ Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:39 am
Whether there is a god or not is unimportant in this discussion. What I am asking is, is it possible to believe in a 'spiritual' component of human existence without the idea of a deity being part of it. Is there more to life than chemical reactions?
sandorski @ Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:09 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Whether there is a god or not is unimportant in this discussion. What I am asking is, is it possible to believe in a 'spiritual' component of human existence without the idea of a deity being part of it. Is there more to life than chemical reactions?
"Spiritual", I dunno, perhaps "Soul", but "Spiritual" is a different concept IMO. Soul is more about a Life Form beyond the physical, whereas Spiritual attaches Consequences of Punishment/Reward onto a Soul.